1 or 2 games are hardly legitimate sample size. In statistics, the general concept of approaching a mean with samples is 25. Of course, we don't have the luxury of getting that many games. Let's say though that Irving played only 1 game and it was an off night for him, but the others played in some normal games, does that make Irving bad?

If let's say Irving was able to play every game (I'm not 100% sure on his contract status, see below), could make it up to the Flames again without waiver issue, but was benched in favour of Brust/Taylor, then there may be issues. At the moment though, I think there's significant legitimacy to that opposing line of though.

The first post you quoted by InfiniteIggy cites a contract issue which your posts do not address (and failed to address in this post) and still stands as a possibility against your argument. If Irving's contract is still on a certain games limitation, then they could be playing him out of contractual problems, not because he's being outplayed.

Whole different topic then. In that case, this becomes merely a venting of that frustration.

Kirant, we have what we have. Yes, the # of games are small, but if we go back to last year it has to be concerning the amount of game action he has been able to get into. You want your stud goalie to get alot of games, not a couple a month. AS for the question in you first paragragh, yes that would make him look bad. But hopefully he'd be able to show that was just a blip, and have a good game soon after.

AS far as the contract issues: what's worse, him not playing so he can't get claimed when there is no hockey, or him not playing? I for one do not like how we are managing this asset.